The right amount of work is somewhere around four to six hours a day. It would solve lots of issues. For example, most kids are in school endless numbers of hours not because they are learning, but because most schooling before high school is essentially day care. Schools would then let out in four hours as well, and some of the rest of the time parents would spend with their kids. I sometimes wonder if in modern societies work is a covert action not to increase wealth, but to keep people occupied so that they don't get the urge to do evil to each other. Otherwise, what is the force that ultimately will have people working three jobs just to survive? If you educated all these people, where are the jobs that would allow them employment? You see, I don't have the answer(s). What I do know is that the current system (all known economic theories) is clearly flawed, and flawed badly. One final note that hints at the complexity of the problem. Perhaps you are aware of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. It basically says that the consistency of a system cannot be proved within the system itself. And this is in pure logic. We are trying to come up with a system that is not only economically consistent (self sustaining etc), but moral, green, etc. We will never know that we have achieved this system logically, we can only intuit it.
Acquiring food is not that difficult, and neither is water. It can be done relatively cheaply (minus third world countries). It is shelter that is at the heart of the problem, since it is a finite resource that you cannot grow or synthesize. And we are not even talking about the power, the sewage, the upkeep, the sidewalks and roads that lead to your shelter, the police force to secure it, etc.
Sanaz, maybe move to Cuba. The economy that is fairly isolated from the Western ills, and 99% don't have any money or any way to accumulate it. So for practical purposes that is what you are looking for. I would say Haiti but that's almost unfair because of the lack of diversity in natural resources.
Ok to rephrase my question. In a money-less society how can I acquire something that I do not currently have and cannot manufacture on my own?
I remember coming up with such ideas as a teen. My 2c... - its not money, but the love of money that is the problem. - eliminating money won't eliminate greed/human nature. - a lack of knowledge combined with a belief in lies is at the root of all our problems. - the truth shall set us free.
Read the original post, I think the answer is there, unless you believe in fairy home-builders or pizza falling from sky like rain To spell it out: You honor the work of others and so would they yours. 'freeloading' would destroy such a society, simple as that.
Cuba is intensely poor because it has no natural resources outside of tobacco and sugar. On top of that, it has an embargo from the US. It must import all of it's oil and other power resources (then how did Japan overcome the same problem ?). What Cuba should do is build nuclear reactors. France should volunteer to build it and educate on upkeep, dispose of waste, etc, imo - the French are a moral people. It also needs to get a desalination plant like the one in Aruba. If Cuba were a nice place to live (like during Ernest Hemingway stay), what good would it do the world? The island is tiny by comparison to the land mass of the US, Africa, Russia, China, India, etc etc etc, although I believe it is the biggest island in the world. It is funny. The rest of the world wants to turn this island into Puerto Rico - i.e, another US "state" the way it was during the Batista era. What the world should want for Cuba is that it stays almost the way it is, except that it should be free and Democratic, just not Capitalist. It does so many things right, except oppress it's people. Finally, Cuba needs to become a Taiwan (semi-conductors) or an Israel (biotech). The only way to maintain it's socialism is to export technology. The last thing Cuba should allow itself to become is Hawaii, which is what it was during Batista.
I think there are millions of primitive/tribal people who hunt to eat or get food from the forest. These people do not need money to acquire food, water and shelter. They live in a money-less society in this technological-advanced world.
There's no such thing as "inherent greed" in people. It depends on psycho-socio-economic conditions. It is veeeeery simple to understand. Are people greedy of air? Hell no, because air is abundant. The same way if cars, energy,food, clothes, houses, etc. will be abundant, in far more supply vs the demand- people will not rush after them. the people who call no-money economy as delusional utopia or "impossible" will be the first in line to enjoy the benefits when it will come. same with airplanes, etc. first they laugh at it, then they use it. Schopenhauer said it best: All truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Second it is violently opposed. And third it is accepted as self-evident.